So, what is wrong with Hardy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP: You drive me nuts. You made up those numbers. There is no reason to do that, except to have fun at the expense of the ignorant masses. Your sentiment is correct: there is more than enough IB students to fill Hardy to the gills.

By the way, has everyone seen this map? http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/DocUploads/DataShop/DS_16.pdf

It shows Hardy enrollment in 2005-2006. There were 405 students. 94 came from ward 3 (so in-bounds) and another 26 from ward 2 (mostly all in-bounds). So, we're talking about 33% in-bounds during a time in which Deal was openly accepting all Mann students (and I presume other schools). This should shut up the folks saying the IB folks never supported the school.

It should also -- thank god -- shut up the fool driveling on and on about this being a bait-and-switch. The claim is that Hardy will just increase OOB enrollment as IB enrollment goes up. This begs two questions: why hasn't enrollment been raised already? Surely there are more kids starving for the 2nd best middle school in DC. And, why wasn't enrollment higher in the past so that more OOB students could be accommodated (since the higher IB numbers surely pushed them out)? As the enrollment is pretty much the same ten years later, it sure seems like the size of the school is roughly fixed.

That is so cool! I can see my house! Or, rather the dot marking the location of my house. And the dots for all of dd's friends from back in the day. Thanks for posting, pp! Sending this link to dd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP: You drive me nuts. You made up those numbers. There is no reason to do that, except to have fun at the expense of the ignorant masses. Your sentiment is correct: there is more than enough IB students to fill Hardy to the gills.

By the way, has everyone seen this map? http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/DocUploads/DataShop/DS_16.pdf

It shows Hardy enrollment in 2005-2006. There were 405 students. 94 came from ward 3 (so in-bounds) and another 26 from ward 2 (mostly all in-bounds). So, we're talking about 33% in-bounds during a time in which Deal was openly accepting all Mann students (and I presume other schools). This should shut up the folks saying the IB folks never supported the school.

It should also -- thank god -- shut up the fool driveling on and on about this being a bait-and-switch. The claim is that Hardy will just increase OOB enrollment as IB enrollment goes up. This begs two questions: why hasn't enrollment been raised already? Surely there are more kids starving for the 2nd best middle school in DC. And, why wasn't enrollment higher in the past so that more OOB students could be accommodated (since the higher IB numbers surely pushed them out)? As the enrollment is pretty much the same ten years later, it sure seems like the size of the school is roughly fixed.

Driveling fool here. So much for agreeing to disagree.

Enrollment hasn't been raised for various reasons, undoubtedly. One is that DCPS wasn't able to give Filmore the boot the last time they tried. The other is that growing OOB enrollment without simultaneously growing IB enrollment would drive up the FARMs rate, which is already at 55%

You are right, of course, that there are many kids starving for the 2nd best (DCPS-run) middle school in DC. DCPS will let more of those kids into Hardy under the right conditions.

[Anonymous]

I thought anyone that lotteries for Hardy gets in?

[Anonymous]

Hardy was about 540 kids in 2011-12. It's quite a bit smaller now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP: You drive me nuts. You made up those numbers. There is no reason to do that, except to have fun at the expense of the ignorant masses. Your sentiment is correct: there is more than enough IB students to fill Hardy to the gills.

By the way, has everyone seen this map? http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/DocUploads/DataShop/DS_16.pdf

It shows Hardy enrollment in 2005-2006. There were 405 students. 94 came from ward 3 (so in-bounds) and another 26 from ward 2 (mostly all in-bounds). So, we're talking about 33% in-bounds during a time in which Deal was openly accepting all Mann students (and I presume other schools). This should shut up the folks saying the IB folks never supported the school.

It should also -- thank god -- shut up the fool driveling on and on about this being a bait-and-switch. The claim is that Hardy will just increase OOB enrollment as IB enrollment goes up. This begs two questions: why hasn't enrollment been raised already? Surely there are more kids starving for the 2nd best middle school in DC. And, why wasn't enrollment higher in the past so that more OOB students could be accommodated (since the higher IB numbers surely pushed them out)? As the enrollment is pretty much the same ten years later, it sure seems like the size of the school is roughly fixed.

Given that the map is from 2005-6 and it shows Hamilton Education Campus, I'd assume it had something to do with that move. Hardy was moved to northeast for a couple of years while it was renovated. That's what really, really killed it as an in-boundary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There aren't enough kids IB for Hardy to fill it. That's part of the problem.

We can fix that

DC Office of Planning

Ha! All OP is interested in building is more condos for single professionals and childless-couples, not families. Their agenda is the "Clarendonization" of DC -- ten storeis of hipster flats on top of a Five Guys and a wine bar.

Right, see what they have done of 14th ave NW.. Used to be a nice street to walk, now it could be Clarendon, Ballston, or anywhere else in the US. Ugly. Senseless.

Many would look at that massive development at Wisconsin & Idaho and say the same thing: Ugly. Senseless. Could be Clarendon, except the development in Clarendon seems of higher quality.

[Anonymous]

Looks like Mann is adding a third K and 1st grade class this coming year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There aren't enough kids IB for Hardy to fill it. That's part of the problem.

We can fix that

DC Office of Planning

Ha! All OP is interested in building is more condos for single professionals and childless-couples, not families. Their agenda is the "Clarendonization" of DC -- ten storeis of hipster flats on top of a Five Guys and a wine bar.

There are families with kids in apts/condos in Clarendon. Also McLean. And I am pretty sure in Upper Northwest.

But you are the Five Guys poster from the RE forum, so I do not expect you to have more than a cartoon view of new development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There aren't enough kids IB for Hardy to fill it. That's part of the problem.

We can fix that

DC Office of Planning

Ha! All OP is interested in building is more condos for single professionals and childless-couples, not families. Their agenda is the "Clarendonization" of DC -- ten storeis of hipster flats on top of a Five Guys and a wine bar.

There are families with kids in apts/condos in Clarendon. Also McLean. And I am pretty sure in Upper Northwest.

But you are the Five Guys poster from the RE forum, so I do not expect you to have more than a cartoon view of new development.

Hardly any new apartments in DC are built for families, and that's fine with the top bureaucrats in the DC government. They want new residents who are substantial net taxpayers, and not pesky and pricey consumers of government services like public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There aren't enough kids IB for Hardy to fill it. That's part of the problem.

We can fix that

DC Office of Planning

Ha! All OP is interested in building is more condos for single professionals and childless-couples, not families. Their agenda is the "Clarendonization" of DC -- ten storeis of hipster flats on top of a Five Guys and a wine bar.

There are families with kids in apts/condos in Clarendon. Also McLean. And I am pretty sure in Upper Northwest.

But you are the Five Guys poster from the RE forum, so I do not expect you to have more than a cartoon view of new development.

Hardly any new apartments in DC are built for families, and that's fine with the top bureaucrats in the DC government. They want new residents who are substantial net taxpayers, and not pesky and pricey consumers of government services like public schools.

I work for govt and I can assure you that we have little to no control on the unit size in privately developed buildings. The area we do control would be subsidized housing or public housing and let me guess, you would not be happy if we built that near you would you? The City should be building three bedroom low income units on top of every librart but wait, no one actually wants poor families in the neighbrhood. Everythign else is market driven. The new three bedroom are 4k/month in rent at City center if you are interested. And there is still a huge demand for studios and one bedrooms in the City, the developers have their own market studies and they wouldn't build them if they couldnt fill them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There aren't enough kids IB for Hardy to fill it. That's part of the problem.

We can fix that

DC Office of Planning

Ha! All OP is interested in building is more condos for single professionals and childless-couples, not families. Their agenda is the "Clarendonization" of DC -- ten storeis of hipster flats on top of a Five Guys and a wine bar.

There are families with kids in apts/condos in Clarendon. Also McLean. And I am pretty sure in Upper Northwest.

But you are the Five Guys poster from the RE forum, so I do not expect you to have more than a cartoon view of new development.

Hardly any new apartments in DC are built for families, and that's fine with the top bureaucrats in the DC government. They want new residents who are substantial net taxpayers, and not pesky and pricey consumers of government services like public schools.

I work for govt and I can assure you that we have little to no control on the unit size in privately developed buildings. The area we do control would be subsidized housing or public housing and let me guess, you would not be happy if we built that near you would you? The City should be building three bedroom low income units on top of every librart but wait, no one actually wants poor families in the neighbrhood. Everythign else is market driven. The new three bedroom are 4k/month in rent at City center if you are interested. And there is still a huge demand for studios and one bedrooms in the City, the developers have their own market studies and they wouldn't build them if they couldnt fill them.

Not exactly true. Many, if not most, if not most of these projects are PUDs, which means that they undergo special review because the developer is seeking relief from existing zoning or wants to build more than what zoning permits. It would be very easy for the DC government to insist as a condition of granting the waiver from zoning requirements and approval of the project, that more affordable housing be included than what the law requires and that more larger units (at market or affordable) be built for families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There aren't enough kids IB for Hardy to fill it. That's part of the problem.

We can fix that

DC Office of Planning

Ha! All OP is interested in building is more condos for single professionals and childless-couples, not families. Their agenda is the "Clarendonization" of DC -- ten storeis of hipster flats on top of a Five Guys and a wine bar.

There are families with kids in apts/condos in Clarendon. Also McLean. And I am pretty sure in Upper Northwest.

But you are the Five Guys poster from the RE forum, so I do not expect you to have more than a cartoon view of new development.

Hardly any new apartments in DC are built for families, and that's fine with the top bureaucrats in the DC government. They want new residents who are substantial net taxpayers, and not pesky and pricey consumers of government services like public schools.

When you say built for families, you mean 3 Bedrooms, right? IIUC there are families with children in 2BR units.

As for it being fine, it is correct that zoning does not give the "bureaucrats" the right to determine unit sizes, so it is determined by the market (just as which restaurants locate where is). If you want to change that its up to the Council though, not the bureaucrats. Note in one instance an ANC has insisted on 3 BR units in exchange for more density, but its very very few 3BR units.

[Anonymous]

We were at a class potluck for our DD's 4th grade class last weekend. Only one parent there said that they were considering Hardy for middle school after 5th grade. Not exactly a vote of confidence in Hardy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought anyone that lotteries for Hardy gets in?

Are you suggesting that the Pride does not limit the number of spots for Hardy in the OOB lottery?

[Anonymous]

Why, oh why, is this thread (a reincarnation of a million other "Hardy isn't good enough" threads) still alive???!!! Die...please die!!!

PS--My kids doesn't even go to Hardy. I'm just tired of the complaining.